Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Indicate stale reactions based on user activity

Parent

Indicate stale reactions based on user activity

+2
−2

Reactions are currently used on CD to:

  • Confirm an answer worked (similar to accepting an answer on SO)
  • Show that an answer is dangerous
  • Indicate interest in participating in a proposed CD site

Some of these have enduring meaning. For example, if rm -rf * was dangerous 50 years ago, it is still dangerous now. Others go stale. For example, if I indicate that I would be a casual user of a proposal, and then forget CD exists for the next 3 years, that reaction is not as meaningful as a fresh one. Another example: A Python 2 answer may have been accepted in 2010, with the asking account now inactive, and basically it will never get corrected even though Python 2 is now obsolete - this became a significant occasional problem on SO after some years.

My solution:

  • Define a time horizon t_max for each reaction. This indicates the CD devs' best guess for how long that reaction is relevant for. t_max can be infinity.
  • When displaying reactions, check t_age: how long it's been since the user's last login.
  • If the t_age > t_max, display the reaction as "stale" or "old" and grey it out in the UI (halve the saturation?). Each stale reaction should also have mouse over text like "Reactions made by accounts which have not been active in over 30 days".

This is a live calculation, in that stale reactions can become fresh again when the user logs in after a long hiatus.

This system can be gamed by writing a script that logs in every day, to artificially keep your own reactions fresh indefinitely. I don't think anybody will bother for a long time.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more of my reactions than I've ever placed, even though I'm more or le... (3 comments)
Post
+4
−0

I would prefer to give readers information rather than infer conclusions (sometimes right, sometimes not). We have an existing request to show reactions in history somehow -- specifically, readers need to know if that outdated/dangerous reaction was before or after a substantial edit.

Maybe we can add the timestamp of the newest reaction (of a type) to the tooltip when viewing the reaction?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

Edits after dangerous should make a notification (2 comments)
Edits on dangerous is similar to edits on "works for" (1 comment)
Edits after dangerous should make a notification
matthewsnyder‭ wrote about 1 year ago

If you marked something dangerous, you should get notifications when the post is edited. That way you can review it and decide whether it's still dangerous.

IMO that's an argument to add staleness to "dangerous" as well - if the question is not edited it should never go stale, but if the question was edited and the notifications was never clicked on for X days, the "dangerous" should be considered stale until the notification is marked as read.

I'm not saying we should hide or delete the reactions btw. Just that if there are 3 dangerous reactions on a post, I'd like to see how many are "stale" according to some reasonable heuristic and how many are "fresh". I can of course use my own judgement as a human in deciding whether to disregard the stales or not.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote about 1 year ago

I agree we should give people info. I'm not confident that age should be part of it. That might make too many assumptions about people's activity.